Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic terrorism


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was  Speedy keep (nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure). Some of the articles will be re-nominated individually. Huon (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Islamic terrorism
Previous AfDs for these articles: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I am nominating these 3 articles (also: Christian terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism) for deletion since they are based on original research. (WP:OR) They are just collections of records of violent acts by members of each religion. There is no evidence that their terrorism is "Islamic" or "Jewish" or "Christian," nor are these expressions even used by most of the sources cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I think that all should stay (even the first one, which only has 156 refs).  There clearly is terrorism that takes place with religion being the rationale cited by the perpetrators.  That is evidenced rather dramatically in the first entry on the above list.  There are many books on Islamist terrorism -- this isn't OR at all, as asserted by the nom.  That said, I think it is fair to say that the articles should be culled to make certain that they entries belong; but AfD isn't the proper place to make such pointy observations.  Also, I recognize that there may be debate as to naming conventions for the subjects covered by this article.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would not object to an article on the expression "Islamic terrorism.,Steve Dufour (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the suggestion. I would suggest you consider w/drawing the nom, given the reactions to it.  Otherwise, it will just waste peoples' time.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, but perhaps rename to "Terrorism inspired by ... religious convictions", or something of the sort. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But how can we know what inspires a person to do something? Steve Dufour (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The most common way would be by their words, and/or that of the organization in whose name they commit the act. You know -- such as when an organization that commits suicide bombings as istishhad (martyrdom operations) calls itself the Islamic Jihad Organization, and says in its manifesto that its acts are done in the name of Allah pursuant to the Koran ... that might be an inkling that perhaps they would fit into the indicated article.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then write an article about that group. But don't lump them together with Guy Fawkes. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Had not realized Fawkes was in the Islamic terrorism article. Appreciate the tidbit.  But you asked a question (how can we know), and I've answered it.  The Fawkes comment -- as your response -- seems to me a red herring that has little to do w/your question and my response.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, definitely not OR. While the articles may need improvement, for each religin we have clear-cut examples of terrorism inspired by it according to the perpetrators' own words and confirmed by reliable sources. Huon (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Supersonic Speedy Keep ridiculous Nomination but does need clean up Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, also snowy at that.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Rename&cleanup. At the very least there should be some clear guidelines as to what goes into each article. For example, in Christian terrorism I read:
 * "The Nagaland Rebels of Nagaland, North-East India is a coalition of rebel groups including the National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Isak-Muivah, has been involved in an ethnic conflict that has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths since the Indian Declaration of Independence."
 * I'm not sure in what sense these Maoist groups are supposed to be "Christian."
 * I also see no point in listing terrorists who just happen to be Christian/Muslim/Jewish. To justify the religious adjective, the articles should surely be restricted to terrorism supported and encouraged by the relevant religious leadership? Furthermore, those leaders should be mainstream within the relevant religion, or else the label is deceptive. "Islamic terrorism", for example, implies mainstream Muslim support for terrorism, while "Islamist terrorism" restricts it to Islamists. Certainly the activities of the Lord's Resistance Army, for example, are not representative of mainstream Christianity.
 * To put it another way, I could write an article called "Human terrorism" ("Human terrorism is terrorism conducted by human beings. Many terrorist acts throughout history have been conducted by such groups.") but it wouldn't be very helpful. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is strictly for AfD discussion. Re-name and cleanup issues can be addressed elsewhere.  Addressing them in the proper place is more than a formality -- it assures that the right editors are alerted to the discussion. (and I've deleted the para in question, which I agree did not belong).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - At least one of the three articles nominated here is of no more encyclopedic value than Hindu terrorism was, so I encourage contributors to review Articles for deletion/Hindu terrorism prior to taking a position on any of the articles at hand. —  C M B J   02:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind pointing to what we are supposed to examine in the Hindu AFD? scrolling though it seems like a vigerous debate but since i can see the article that was deleted i have no idea what i am supposed to be comparing. Secondly which are referring to as uncenclyopedic?  Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, which article here you have in mind? Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Hindu terrorism" is hanging on as Saffron terror.Steve Dufour (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Google Scholar returns 163 entries with "Islamic terrorism" in the title. In his peer-reviewed journal article, Richard Jackson notes "The term 'Islamic terrorism' has become a ubiquitous feature of Western political and academic counter-terrorism discourse in recent years."  "Examining over 300 political and academic texts and employing a discourse analytic approach", he goes on to "describe and dissect the central terms, assumptions, labels, narratives and genealogical roots of the language and knowledge of 'Islamic terrorism' and to reflect on its practical and normative consequences."  He concludes use of the term in discourse is "unhelpful, not least because they are highly politicized, intellectually contestable, damaging to community relations and practically counter-productive".  In the peer reviewed article The Religious Sources of Islamic Terrorism Bar points out "WHILE TERRORISM--even in the form of suicide attacks--is not an Islamic phenomenon by definition, it cannot be ignored that the lion's share of terrorist acts and the most devastating of them in recent years have been perpetrated in the name of Islam. This fact has sparked a fundamental debate both in the West and within the Muslim world regarding the link between these acts and the teachings of Islam."  Clearly there is significant academic research on the topic.  There is no reason to delete it from wikipedia.--Work permit (talk) 03:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Notable topics, and no concrete reason to support deletion. If there are content or scope disputes, deleting the article is not the place to go. --Ari (talk) 03:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The nominator’s reasoning doesn’t withstand the scrutiny associated with actually reading the articles. Greg L (talk) 04:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Islamic terrorism. This is certainly something real, and of course WP:Notable. The name is unfortunate since Islam itself and most Muslims do not support terrorism, but that is the name most often used for these terrorist attacks by groups who identify themselves as Muslim. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Christian terrorism and Jewish religious terrorism (and Saffron terror too). These are collections of violent incidents from history, in the case of the Christian article going back to the Reformation. They seem to have been created in an effort to be fair by showing that other religions can get violent too, not just the Muslims. There should be articles about each notable event and group mentioned in the articles as well as possible articles on Christianity and violence, Islam and violence, and Judaism and violence which would cite scholars who have written on these topics, not just list incidents. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Islamic terrorism is an established phenomenon discussed by verifiable sources.  The reason that this article is so controversial is because of the intrinsically controversial subject matter.--98.228.32.33 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a important subject.Cmmmm 19:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. All three pages. This kind of AfD is getting to be a perennial. People take offense at the suggestion that something unattractive might be associated with a religion, and they want to wipe out the page instead of improving it. The nominator states that the basis of the nomination is WP:OR, but I infer from the comments that it is more specifically WP:COATRACK, since the pages in question are sourced. However, there is plenty of sourcing—reliable, secondary sources—that associate each of these page topics, that is, associate acts of terrorism with the history of the respective religions. The pages do not claim that the respective religions have terrorism in their nature, but that there have been acts of terrorism related to one another by their (sourced) motivations. Of course, what is really going on here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but the correct solution to that problem is not to delete the pages, but to correctively edit them for any POV issues, such as any unverifiable claims that terrorism is intrinsic to the religion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Am I the only one who finds it odd that the nom has not yet withdrawn his nom, to spare his fellow editors wasted time?--Epeefleche (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I have to say that, as a matter of process, the nom has every right to continue the AfD, especially since there has been a delete !vote. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep -- he has every right. He also has every right to withdraw his !vote as to all the articles, and his remains the only delete !vote as to one of the three articles.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Can a nominator withdraw an AfD once it's submitted? Procedurally, how would one do that?   I've never seen it before.  The only procedure I know of to end a debate is an admin closing it.--Work permit (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had to do it once, usually just Striking the nomination allows univolved admin to close it. Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good questions. 1) Anyone can close a non-controversial AfD. Not just an admin. 2) If a nom doesn't wish to close himself, the normal approach is for him to reflect at the AfD page that he withdraws his nom, and invites another editor or admin to close the AfD. 3) I've seen noms do this more than once, when faced with (as here) overwhelming consensus that their nom is not supported. It is courteous to as-yet uninvolved editors, as it saves them the waste of time involved in adding their !vote. I've seen it done in nominations that were faced a lot fewer "strong keep" !votes than this one has already attracted.--Epeefleche (talk)
 * The only way to close this discussion early (under WP:KEEP), is if there are no remaining arguments for deletion. Not only the nominator, but everyone else who argued for delete, would have to withdraw their comments. --Darkwind (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment I would be willing to withdraw the nomination on Islamic terrorism since it is a notable, if bad, expression. I will then renominate the other 3, including Saffron terror since they were my real targets. It might have been wrong but I felt if I didn't include the Muslims people would say that I was anti-Islam. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We arent bargaining here either do it or dont Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you do, I suggest you AfD each article seperately. Each article covers a different topic, and should stand or fall on it's own.  Don't AfD the articles on mass because You don't like the topic on principle--Work permit (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Then Nomination withdrawn since the first article is notable, or at least the expression "Islamic terrorism" is, so it should stay. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.